Commentary on Matthew — Commentariorum Series, Matthew 27:1–66 (§§115–145)
Latin source: the anonymous late-antique Commentariorum Series in Matthaeum (Origen's now-lost Greek commentary in an old-Latin translation), from the public-domain critical text of E. Klostermann & E. Benz, GCS 38 = Origenes Werke XI (Leipzig, 1933). Sections follow Klostermann; Scripture is given in Origen's Old-Latin/Septuagint wording. This English translation is released into the public domain.[§115] But when morning had come, all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus, that they might deliver him to death; and they led him away bound and delivered him to Pontius Pilate the governor (27, 1. 2).
He who stumbles in the darkness and at night is worthy of pardon, but he who stumbles in the clear daylight can never blame his error as though it belonged to one who is master of himself (especially when he stumbles while having within himself the "lamp of the body"), but rather he must blame his own lack of self-mastery. Now we have said this to show that the disciples of Christ are indeed scandalized in the night,
according to what the Lord foretells to them: "you will all suffer scandal because of me on this night", and because Peter denied three times before the cock crowed. But those who take counsel against Jesus — all the chief priests and elders of the people, when morning had come — sin in the light, that is, knowingly, according to what is written concerning this counsel, that they took counsel with one accord "together", as it is written in the Psalms, that they might deliver Christ to death, thinking to extinguish through his death his teaching and the faith in him among those who had believed in him as in the Son of God.
But taking such counsel against him, the chief priests of the cult of the letter that kills, and the elders of the ministry of condemnation, bound Jesus, who looses men from their bonds and "says to those who are in bonds: come forth", and who looses those who are fettered and says: "let us break their bonds asunder, and let us cast their yoke from us",
and who had loosed from her bonds "the daughter of Abraham" bound by Satan "for eighteen years", so that she who "before could not at all look upward" should now be no longer bent down. And they bound him who willed it, and who, in the very fact that he was bound, was laying an ambush against those very bonds and breaking them, so that now the chief priests and elders of the Jews should have no bonds against men, the Lord evidently breaking them in himself.
But if anyone requires of me a Scripture showing these things concerning the breaking of the bonds with which the chief priests and elders bound Jesus, let him understand that for this very reason Jesus himself says through the prophet: "let us break their bonds asunder", as if he were speaking of the chief priests and elders, or much more of those rulers who wrought in them, and of the kings of the earth, those who "stood up", and of the princes who "came together as one against the Lord and against his Christ", whose "yoke also let us cast from us". But he will satisfy you still further, so that you may accept that, even though those who took counsel against him led Jesus away bound, nevertheless Jesus broke the bonds, if you consider the things that are written concerning Samson, who was frequently bound and broke the bonds of the foreigners, because he had been a Nazarite of God and had hair full of strength. If therefore that man, on account of the strength of the hair which he had on his head, was able to break the bonds of the foreigners with which they had frequently bound him, how much more Christ, who after so many wonders and mighty works which he did, willingly delivered himself over to bonds (lulling to sleep within himself the power of his divinity and consenting to be bound), without doubt broke the bonds surrounding him! Of which bonds the bonds of Samson were the mysteries.
[§116] and they handed him over to Pontius Pilate. But whether both names of the governor also have some meaning fitting the dispensation of the Lord and Savior, or not, is not easy to answer with any finality. For the root terms from which these names are derived may move someone — Pontius and Pilatus; but whether one is rightly moved or not, let each of those capable of it come to consider and know.
[§117] Then Judas, who betrayed him, seeing that he was condemned, led by repentance brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, saying: I have sinned in that I betrayed innocent blood. But they said: What is that to us? See thou to it. And casting down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed, and going away hanged himself with a noose. But the chief priests, having taken the pieces of silver, said: It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood. And having taken counsel together, they bought with them the potter's field, for the burial of strangers. For this reason that field was called Acheldemach, that is, the field of blood, unto this present day. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying: And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was priced, whom they priced of the sons of Israel, and gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me (27, 3—10).
Let those answer me who introduce certain fables concerning natures, supposing that they speak the truth and not recognizing that their opinion accuses the Creator of injustice, as one who made certain vessels indeed "unto honor" not by reason of any virtue of theirs leading them to honor, but certain others "unto dishonor" not because of their sins leading them to dishonor.
For if Judas was of a perishable nature, how did he take up so great a repentance that he was not overcome by desire of the thirty pieces of silver,
for the sake of which he took up the impious audacity of the betrayal? For if they refer to the property of natures what is said: "a bad tree cannot bring forth good fruits", let them say — unless he breathe forth some goodness, even if not perfectly nor as he ought, Judas being converted: this very thing, that he brought back the thirty pieces of silver, whence is it, and that he said, recognizing his sin: I have sinned in betraying innocent blood, unless it be from a good planting of the mind and from the sowing of virtue, which is sown in every rational soul, which Judas did not cultivate and therefore fell into such a sin? But if any of men is of a perishing nature, without doubt Judas too was rather of a nature of this perishing kind. And this without doubt would seem to have been the case, if, betraying innocent blood, he had either not brought back the money, taking his delight in it, or, bringing it back, had not said that I have sinned in betraying innocent blood.
And if indeed Judas had said what he said after the resurrection of Christ from the dead, perhaps it would plausibly have to be said that the very power of his resurrection compelled him to repent of the deed and to confess his sin. But as it is, as soon as he saw that he had been delivered up to Pilate, being stung with compunction he repented; and perhaps also remembering those things which Jesus had frequently said to his disciples concerning his future resurrection. Judas therefore, seeing the greatness of his crime, did indeed repent and spoke out of the repentance of his heart, confessing his sin, in that he had betrayed innocent blood,
"but he did not repent also according to knowledge",
as he ought to have repented. For he supposed that he would anticipate in death his master who was about to die, and would meet him with a naked soul, so that, confessing and imploring, he might obtain mercy.
For which reason he himself judged and condemned himself in that he had sinned knowingly,
and he did not look to what Job had said, when set in such great disasters: "would that I might be able to kill myself, or to ask someone to do this for me", nor did he see that it does not befit a servant of God to expel himself from this life,
but rather to await concerning this too the judgment of God.
Let us now see whether (that which lies hidden from many … of that passage) by God's granting we may be able to explain what is said: But Judas, who betrayed him, seeing that he was condemned, led by repentance brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests, and the rest.
For if it had been written, after the sentence of Pilate, after he delivered Jesus, scourged with whips, to the Jews that they might crucify him, that Judas had done these things, we should without doubt seek nothing of this kind in that which is said: seeing that he was condemned. But as it is, how did Judas see that he was condemned (for Jesus had not yet been condemned nor questioned by Pilate)? Perhaps therefore someone will say (doing violence to the text) that by the consideration of his own mind he saw the "outcome" of the matter, that he was condemned, from this, that he beheld him delivered up by the chief priests and the elders of the people.
But another will say in this way, that what is written: But Judas, seeing that he was condemned, refers to Judas himself.
For when the chief priests and the elders of the people had delivered Jesus to Pilate, then Judas felt his own evil and understood that one who had dared such things was without doubt judged and condemned by God. And perhaps Satan too, who after the dipped bread had entered into Judas, was present with him until Jesus should be delivered to Pilate.
But after he had done what he wished, "he departed from him"; and, the devil departing, he understood and saw that, betraying innocent blood, he was condemned by God, and his understanding, being now at leisure and no longer having the devil working within him, was able to understand. He was able therefore, the devil departing from him, to receive repentance and to bring back the thirty pieces of silver to those who had given them. And he was able to say, the devil departing, what before the devil departed from him he could not have said; for while the devil was still filling his heart he could not say: I have sinned in betraying innocent blood. But we do not say this, that the devil, departing from any such man, thereafter by no means lies in wait for him. Rather he watches again for the time, whether he may again be able to set himself upon him; and after someone has come to recognize [the devil] even in accordance with his own sin, the devil watches also for the place of a third deception in him.
But if it is needful to use examples as well, let us consider in the first epistle to the Corinthians him who "had his father's wife", for in such an evil he could not have been without a great working of the devil. Of which evil he repented, as the Scripture itself testifies, and was made sorrowful with a "sorrow according to God", a sorrow "which works repentance unto stable salvation". But after he took up such sorrow, the devil set himself upon him again, wishing to exaggerate that sorrow of his beyond measure, so that the sorrow itself should no longer be "according to God", but that, being made more abundant, it might swallow up the sorrowing man beyond measure and beyond what he ought to have sorrowed, and thus Satan might swallow him up in "more abundant sorrow". Foreknowing which, the Apostle gives counsel to the Corinthians that they should confirm "love toward him", stating this as the cause: "lest", he says, "he who is such be swallowed up by more abundant sorrow"; "for we are not ignorant of his devices". Something similar happened also in the case of Judas, who betrayed Jesus, and according to the likeness of that sorrow "which works repentance unto stable salvation", he too being made sorrowful, after he was led by repentance, brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests, saying: I have sinned in betraying innocent blood. Which very thing belonged to repentance and to saving sorrow; but because he never kept his heart, nor sorrowed wisely, but took up a more abundant sorrow sent under to him by the devil (who wished to swallow him up in "more abundant sorrow"), therefore, bringing back those pieces of silver into the temple, he went away and hanged himself with a noose. For if, after he brought back the money and confessed that he had sinned in that he betrayed innocent blood, he had not gone away and hanged himself with a noose, but had sought a "place of repentance" and awaited the time of repentance, perhaps he would even have found him who said: "as I live, since I do not will the death of the sinner, but rather his repentance".
But I think that Judas, understanding also something greater concerning the Savior, cast the thirty pieces of silver nowhere else but into the temple, where he knew the Lord had by his act cast out of the temple "the sheep and the oxen", and had said "to the sellers of doves: take these things hence, and make not my Father's house a house of merchandise". Despairing enough of himself, therefore, because he understood the greatness of his sin, casting those pieces of silver into the temple, he departed and hanged himself with a noose. But those who took up those pieces of silver wished to observe something lawful, and not to put them into the treasury, where the gifts of the people for the needs of the poor were gathered; for they deemed it impious to put the price of blood into the treasury. For which reason, taking counsel, they purchased with that money the potter's field, of one who works clay; for they saw that it was more fitting for that money to be spent upon the dead and upon the place of the dead and of burial, since it was the price of blood, than in the treasury or in some honorable need. But because among the places of the dead too there are differences (since many indeed according to their wish are desirably buried in their own ancestral monuments, while some, on account of certain calamities, are frequently buried in foreign monuments), therefore those who took up the price of the blood of Jesus used it for the purchase of the field of some potter, that in it foreign dead might be buried, not according to their wish but earning this according to some adverse chance. But if it is fitting to understand the strangers spiritually also, we say that the strangers are those who unto the end are estranged from God and are strangers to his covenants. Such strangers therefore have an end of this kind, that they should be buried in the potter's field, which was purchased with the price of blood. For the righteous are they who say: "we have been buried together" with Christ "in the new monument which is found hewn in the rock", "in the hewn monument, where none yet of the dead has been laid". But those who unto the end are strangers from Christ and aliens from God will say, without doubt, consequently: "we have been buried together" with the strangers in the field of the potter who works clay, which was purchased with the price of blood, and we are in the field which is named the field of blood.
But since what the evangelist says after these things (then was fulfilled that which had been spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying the things which are written) — this is not found to have been prophesied by Jeremiah anywhere in his books, whether those which are read in the churches or those which are recited among the Jews — but if anyone can know, let him show where it is written. I suspect, however, that either it is an error of the Scripture and Jeremiah is put for Zechariah, or that there is some secret writing of Jeremiah in which it is written. Now such is the text in Zechariah the prophet: "and I will say to them: if it is good in your sight, give me my wages, or refuse them; and they appointed my wages, thirty pieces of silver. And the Lord said to me: put them down into the furnace, and see if it is genuine, even as I was proved for their sake. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and put them into the house of the Lord, into the furnace". But if anyone saying this supposes that he stumbles, let him see whether this may be prophesied somewhere in the secret writings of Jeremiah, knowing that the Apostle too brings forward certain writings of the secret books, as he says somewhere: "what eye has not seen nor ear heard"; for in no canonical book is this found set down, except in the secret writings of Elijah the prophet. Likewise what he says: "as Jamnes and Mambres withstood Moses" is not found in the public books, but in the secret book which is entitled the book of Jamnes and Mambres. Whence some have dared to reject the epistle to Timothy as having in itself the text of some secret writing, but they were not able to; but that anyone rejected the first epistle to the Corinthians on this account as spurious, has never come to my ears.
[§118] But Jesus stood before the governor; and the governor questioned him, saying: Are you the king of the Jews? Jesus says to him: You say so (27, 11). Truly Jesus "did not count it robbery that he was equal to God", and not once but frequently he humbled himself for the sake of men. And now therefore, having been "appointed judge of all creation" by the Father, the King of kings and Lord of lords, see to how great a degree he humbled himself, so that he consented to stand before the judge of the land of Judea at that time, and being summoned he was questioned with a question which Pilate perhaps in derision or in doubt asked, saying: Are you the king of the Jews?
To which question he answered what he thought fitting, saying You say so. And when he was put on oath by the high priest, that he should say whether he himself is the Christ the Son of God, he answered: "You have said it", but when questioned by Pilate Are you the king of the Jews? he answered You say so. Consider the questions: was not that question, "whether you are the Christ the Son of God", suited to a Jewish person, whereas to the Roman judge saying interrogatively no longer: You are the Christ, but: Are you the king of the Jews?
But whoever carefully considers the very fine points of the Gospel words will see that the high priest indeed said doubtingly: "if you are the Christ the Son of God" (for the syllable "if" shows the doubt of the questioning), but Pilate said declaratively:
You are the king of the Jews. And that Pilate said this declaratively, this too is confirmed by the fact that he also elsewhere inscribes above, in the title, "King of the Jews" in three languages, "in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin", so that both Hebrews and Greeks and Romans might know that Pilate too knew him to be the king of the Jews. For which reason it appears with what reverence he inquired concerning Jesus and appealed to the people, that they should ask rather for Jesus to be released than Barabbas. And it was also a sign of Pilate's reverence, that washing his hands he said: "I am innocent of the blood of this man; see you to it".
But that he said to the high priest "you have said it", obliquely reproving his doubt, he refutes it, and that he says to Pilate you say so, he confirms the opinion of the one making a declaration.
But Mark, instead of "if you are the Christ the Son of God", writes thus: "are you the Son of the Blessed?" Perhaps either that which is written simply, or this which is written doubtingly — I do not know whether the copies may not have an error, since both ought equally to have said: "if you are", or both: "you are".
[§119] And when he was accused by the chief priests and elders of the people, he answered nothing. Then Pilate says to him: Do you not hear how many testimonies they bring against you? And he did not answer him a single word, so that the governor marveled exceedingly (27, 12—14).
The ministers of the Jewish letter that kills, and the elders, are the sons of those priests and elders who accused Jesus, taking up their accusation even until now and accusing Jesus. Therefore, since that very sin remains in them, and "wrath, even to the end" has once forestalled them, they still suffer those same workings, being abandoned along with the whole people "like a tent in a vineyard, and like a hut in a cucumber-field, and like a city that is stormed." And just as Jesus, when accused, then answered nothing, so also now against the accusations of those priests and elders he answers nothing. For the Word of God is silent toward them, and they no longer hear the Word of God, as had once come to pass with the prophets, and, in the consummation of the ages, when he "was made flesh and dwelt among us."
And not only to the chief priests and elders of the people falsely accusing him did he not respond,
but neither to Pilate, since he wished to hear him defending himself against their lying accusations. For when Pilate said to him, after the accusations of the chief priests and elders: Do you not hear how many things they accuse you of?—
not even to him did he respond. For it was not fitting to respond even to one who was in doubt as to whether he ought to respond against their false accusations.
This we have said not forgetting what was said about Pilate, namely that he had at least some momentary kindly disposition toward Christ (for that this is true of Pilate is shown from the whole narrative concerning him).
Yet no one will dare to say that the judgment about Christ within him was abiding and firm; for he was being drawn also to the contrary. Therefore now too, to one being drawn toward the worse opinion, the Lord did not respond, despising all the things that had been said in accusation of him.
But Pilate marveled at his constancy, perhaps knowing how, though he was competent to pronounce sentence and to remit the charge … he marveled, seeing him stand in the calm and quiet gravity of wisdom and, with judgment, unperturbed—he in whom it was reckoned by those who were there that he was in peril of death; and he was stronger than human nature,
and, though all its weakness sought to blunt the power of his spirit, it did not prevail to do this.
But the fact that it is written that Pilate did not only marvel, but even marveled exceedingly, moves me to reckon that it seemed to him worthy of great wonder that Christ, when brought forward to a criminal trial, should remain unperturbed and stand before death, which among all men is reckoned terrible.
[§120] Now at the feast day the governor was accustomed to release to the people one prisoner, whomever they wished.
Do not be surprised if, the Roman rule still being in its beginnings among them, and the Jews newly taking up the yoke of the Romans, since it had been granted to the Jews that at the paschal solemnity they might ask for one whom they wished,
even though he seemed liable for a thousand murders. For thus the nations render certain favors to those whom they subject to themselves, until their yoke is confirmed over them. Yet this custom of releasing a prisoner existed at one time also among the Jews. For when Saul had decreed that no one should take food, but Jonathan had tasted a honeycomb against the king's decree, he found Jonathan liable; and although he was his appointed son, yet on account of some oath of his he had decreed to put him to death. But he did not kill him, since all the people of Israel intervened and asked for him to be granted his life.
But that Pilate released one prisoner to the people, or that Saul, at the people's request, released Jonathan, is no wonder; for the life of both those who were asking was under fault, since the Jews were always liable. But let us inquire whether something of this sort happens also in the judgment of God, so that the whole Church may be able to ask that some sinner be freed from the condemnation of sin — and especially if perhaps he has all the remaining works of perdition, yet is unwearied in doing good to the Church. For you will find such men often set in positions of power: sinners indeed in other respects, yet doing much on behalf of Christians as far as it is possible for them. And you will be led the more to inquire into such matters, if it has a fitting rationale, seeing that Israel too used to pray to God "for the life of Nebuchadnezzar" and of Belshazzar his son. But this, if it seems to anyone worthy of inquiry, let him inquire into it. But as for what is plain, let us all try to take care that we be found to be among those who ask, and in the rank of those who have lived well, rather than among those on whose behalf petition is made as for evil men. For even if one of the sinners is granted to the prayers of the Church, it is nevertheless not just that such a one should attain glory and blessedness; for it is enough that he be released from punishment.
But I think, on account of that festival of the Jews on which Barabbas was chosen for life while Christ was neglected, the Lord says through the prophet: "my soul hates your fasts and your holidays and your feast days". And because they preferred to keep the solemnity with the robber set free rather than with Jesus, I will speak by way of example: if they had kept the solemnity rightly, like Josiah or someone similar to him, and there had been given to them the liberty of asking for whomever they wished, without doubt they would have demanded Jesus and condemned Barabbas. But let us pray that, as we keep the festal day, "not in the old leaven nor in the leaven of malice and wickedness, but in the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth", we may deserve indeed to condemn Barabbas, but to receive Jesus, free from all bonds, as our king and lord. And as long as we do these things, our festal days will not be turned into mourning, nor our songs into lamentation, but there will be in us true solemnities, the solemnities of God.
[§121] Now at that time they had a notorious prisoner, who was called Barabbas. So when they were gathered together, Pilate said to them: Whom do you wish that I release to you, Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ? For he knew that they had handed him over out of envy (27, 16—18).
In many copies it is not contained that Barabbas was also called Jesus, and perhaps rightly so, that the name of Jesus might not belong to any of the wicked. For in so great a multitude of the Scriptures we know of no Jesus who was a sinner, whereas in other names we find that, among the righteous, there are also found wicked men of the very same name — for instance, Judas the apostle, the zealot, and likewise Judas the patriarch, and Judas Maccabaeus, all praiseworthy, but also Judas the traitor; and in Genesis there are found sons of Seth and sons of Cain bearing the same name, such as Enoch and Lamech and Methuselah. But it was not fitting that there should be any such thing also in the name of Jesus. And I think that in the heresies some such thing has been added on, so that they might have something apt to say for their fables about the likeness of the name of Jesus and Barabbas. For I judge that in these matters some mystery is set forth: that Barabbas was appointed for sedition and wars and murders to be committed in the souls of men, but Jesus, as the Son of God and peace, was appointed, and as the Word and Wisdom, for all good things. These two, then, being bound in human affairs and bodies, that people demanded for itself that Barabbas be released; on whose account that nation does not cease to have seditions and murders and robberies — according to some of that nation in the things that are held outwardly, but according to all the Jews who do not believe in Jesus, inwardly in the soul. For where Jesus is not, there are seditions and quarrels and battles; but where Jesus is, so that they can say: "but if Christ is in us, the body indeed is dead because of sin, but the spirit is life because of righteousness", there all good things are together, and innumerable spiritual riches are in his hands, and peace; "for he himself is our peace, who has made both one". And if anyone should behold that contrary operation, he will recognize that it is he who is in men the bound notorious Barabbas, whom they desire to be released for themselves — not only Israel then sinning according to the flesh, but also all who are like him either in doctrine or in life. Whoever, therefore, does evil things, in his body Barabbas is released, but Christ is bound; but whoever does good things, to him Christ is released, but Barabbas is bound.
[§122] Now while he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent to him, saying: Have nothing to do with that just man; for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him (27, 19).
And Jesus indeed had been handed over out of envy, and out of such manifest envy that even Pilate was not unaware of it. But the evangelist wished not to pass over a matter of divine providence that contains praise of God, who willed through a dream to convert Pilate's wife, so that, as far as lay in her, she might forbid her husband to dare to pronounce sentence against Jesus. And Matthew did not indeed set forth the dream, but only said that she had suffered many things in a dream because of Jesus, and therefore she suffered in a dream so that she might not suffer further. So that we may call Pilate's wife blessed, who suffered many things in a dream because of Jesus, and received in a dream what she was going to suffer.
From which someone will dare to say that it is better for a person to receive evils in a dream than to receive them in real life. For who would not choose to receive his evils in a dream rather than to receive them in his life (unless perhaps he deserves such things that it is expedient for him to receive harsher things in his life rather than to receive lighter ones in a dream)? For he who has received evils in his life (and not these evils which he received in his dream) is consoled and rests "in the bosom of Abraham", according to which he will also have consolation. But whether she also had the beginning of her conversion to God from the fact that she had suffered many things because of Jesus in a dream, God knows; yet this too is contained in certain writings that are not public.
And see (because Pilate's wife called Jesus just) whether perhaps this wife of Pilate is a mystery of the Church from the Gentiles, which at one time indeed was ruled by Pilate, but now is no longer under him because of her faith in Christ.
[§123] But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the people to ask for Barabbas, but to destroy Jesus. And the governor answering said to them: Which of the two do you wish that I release to you? But they said: Barabbas (27, 20—21).
And it is possible to see even now how the people of the Jews are persuaded and stirred up by their elders and by the teachers of the Jewish worship against Jesus, so that they may destroy him (so far as it lies in themselves) and have Barabbas set free; for the crowds believe their chiefs and priests. And for the most part the governor indeed said to the people: Which of the two do you wish that I release to you?, but the crowds — as being true crowds and many, who walk the "broad way that leads to destruction" — asked that Barabbas be released, wishing to have him set free for themselves.
[§124] Pilate says to them: What then shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ? They all say: Let him be crucified, and so on (27, 22—26).
Wishing to strike into them shame at so great a wickedness, Pilate says to them: What then shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ, and not only this but also wishing to take the full measure of their impiety. But they, neither blushing at the fact that Pilate confessed Jesus to be Christ nor keeping any limit in their impiety, all said: Let him be crucified. And indeed, if they had asked that Barabbas be released, but had not on the contrary also demanded Christ for the cross — that is, if they had asked that Barabbas be acquitted, but had not asked that this man be crucified but had left him in Pilate's power, so that he might do with him what he willed — it would still have been of great impiety, that, leaving aside the just man, they had asked for a murderer. But as it is, they multiplied the measure of their impiety, not only demanding a murderer for life, but also the just man for death, and for the most shameful death of the cross. Yet still continuing in that very purpose by which he wished to confound them, so that at least, being confounded, they might come to the choosing of the just man (even if not from the judgment of the heart), he says to them: For what evil has he done? Having nothing to answer against this, they cried out the more, not laying aside but increasing their anger, their fury, their blasphemy, and said: Let him be crucified.
But Pilate, seeing that he was accomplishing nothing, made use of a Jewish custom, wishing to appease them concerning Christ's innocence not only by words but even by the deed itself, if they were willing, but if they were unwilling, to condemn — doing this not according to any custom of the Romans; for he took water in the sight of all, and washing his hands he said: I am innocent of the blood of this just man; see you to it. And he indeed washed himself, but they not only refused to cleanse themselves of Christ's blood, but even took it upon themselves, saying: His blood be upon us, and upon our children. On account of this they were made guilty not only in the blood of the prophets, but, filling up the measure of their fathers, they were made guilty also in the blood of Christ, so that they might hear God saying to them: When you stretch out your hands to me, I will turn away my eyes from you; for your hands are full of blood." Therefore the blood of Jesus was brought not only upon those who were then alive, but also upon all the generations of the Jews following afterward, even to the consummation. Therefore until now their house is left to them desolate. But Pilate, forgetting his own good words, by which he had begun to defend the innocence of Christ, turning aside to evil, not only delivered up Jesus, but even delivered him up scourged with whips, that they might crucify him.
[§125] Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the praetorium and gathered to him the whole cohort, and clothed him with a scarlet chlamys and put purple around him, and placed a crown of thorns upon his head and a reed in his right hand, and kneeling down they mocked him, saying: Hail, King of the Jews (27, 27—29).
It is likely that (in the beginnings of the then newly established Roman empire) the soldiers, not yet keeping the fitting order of discipline, did to the Savior — beyond the custom of the discipline that now exists — this: when, receiving him into the praetorium, they gathered the whole cohort and did what they are said to have done, making Jesus their sport, because he had been named King of the Jews. But I for my part think the soldiers did this while there worked within them the invisible kings and princes of this world, who "stood by and came together in one against the Lord and against his Christ", so that that mockery of theirs may be seen to have been rather theirs than men's — and of those who in that dispensation did not know the wisdom of God, "for if they had known, they would never have crucified the Lord of majesty". Therefore that cohort was a mystery of some malignant host.
And they stripped him of his garments, which he had from above, the seamless tunic and the robe (for such does John describe his garments to be), and they clothed him (mocking him on account of his royal name) with a scarlet chlamys, not understanding what they do:
for that scarlet chlamys was a mystery of the scarlet sign which is written of in Joshua son of Nun, which that Rahab had for her salvation, and in Genesis, which was done upon one of the sons of Tamar at the hand of the one being born, that the scarlet should be bound as a sign of the future passion of Christ. Therefore now also the Lord, taking upon himself the scarlet chlamys, took upon himself the blood of the world,
and in that thorny crown he took upon himself the thorns of our sins woven into his head.
And concerning the chlamys it is written that they again stripped him of the scarlet chlamys, but concerning the thorny crown the evangelists wrote nothing of the sort, on account of which they wished us to seek out the outcome of the matter concerning the thorny crown, once placed on and never taken off. I therefore judge that that thorny crown was consumed from the head of Jesus, so that our old thorns are now no more, after Jesus once took them away from us upon his venerable head.
But if it is fitting to say something also about the reed which they placed in his right hand, we set forth a reasoning of this kind. That reed, then, was a mystery of a vain and fragile scepter, upon which we all leaned before we believed, a malignant scepter; for we trusted in the reed rod of Egypt or of Babylon or of whatever kingdom contrary against the kingdom of God.
And he took that reed and the rod of the fragile kingdom out of our hands, that he might triumph over it and crush it on the wood of the cross. And in place of that former reed, upon which we formerly reclined, he gave us the scepter of the heavenly kingdom
and the rod of which it is written: "the rod of equity is the rod of thy kingdom"; or a rod which may chastise those who have need of chastisement, of which the apostle says: "what will you? shall I come to you with a rod?" He gave us also a staff, that we might celebrate the Passover according to what is written: "let your staffs be in your hands", so that we might celebrate the Passover laying aside the reed rod which we had before we celebrated the Lord's Passover. But they strike with this fragile and vain reed the venerable head of Jesus, since that contrary kingdom also always reviles and beats God the Father — the head of the Lord the Savior. And in all these things the only-begotten power was not harmed, just as it also suffered nothing, though made "a curse for us", when by nature it was a blessing; but, being a blessing, it consumed and dissolved and dispersed every human curse.
[§126] And as they went out, they found a man of Cyrene named Simon; him they compelled to take up his cross (27, 32. 33).
For just as, according to the three evangelists, Jesus is tempted by the devil, but according to John (who made his discourse concern his spiritual nature) he is not tempted — for "the truth and the life" and "the resurrection" and "the true light" is not tempted, but he was tempted according to the man whom the only-begotten God had taken up — so
according to John indeed the Savior, when those who had seized him laid it upon him, "bearing his own cross went out to the place which is called the place of Calvary", but according to the rest he does not bear it for himself.
For those who were leading him away to be crucified, as they went out, found a certain man of Cyrene, named Simon, whom they compelled to take up the cross of Christ. But it was fitting not only for the Savior to take up his own cross, but it was fitting also for us to bear it, fulfilling the compulsion that is salutary for us. Nor, again, would we have been to be profited so much by taking up his cross, as we are now profited by his cross, when he himself takes it up for himself and bears it.
But you will ask whether according to the text both things happened and the evangelists are not discordant with one another, and which of them happened first:
that is, whether those who seized Jesus for crucifixion and laid the cross upon him, so that "bearing it" he might go out into the place of Calvary, did this first, before they compelled Simon of Cyrene — or whether, once they had gone out, they compelled Simon, but when they had come to the place in which they were going to hang him, they themselves placed the cross upon him, so that he himself might bear it. And whoever can examine this, let him examine it in inquiring into both cases, that he may find whether he received the completion of bearing the cross, or rather Simon of Cyrene, who was compelled not by chance, but according to some foreknowledge of God concerning him, led to this according to the disposition of God, so that he might be found worthy of the evangelical scripture and of the ministry of the cross of Christ, in which "the world is crucified" to the saints "and" the saints "to the world".
But certain persons have also wished to expound this very Simon of Cyrene morally, taking their occasion from the fact that he was from the Pentapolis of Cyrene in Libya, so as to say, from the five senses, that as it were the five senses bore the cross of that dispensation. And Simon is interpreted OBEDIENCE: but to whom did it more befit that he should bear the cross of Christ, than to obedience, or (as the second son of Leah was called) to Simeon? For among the Greeks both the patriarch and Peter are named in two ways (according to the property of the Hebrew tongue), so that it fits him who is so called that he be called both Simon and Simeon, since the Hebrews write both the name of Simeon and of Simon with the very same letters. And the place of Calvary is said to have no ordinary dispensation, in that there, where he who was to die for men was to die, he might die. For there has come to me a certain tradition of this kind, that the body of Adam, the first man, was buried there where Christ was crucified, so that "as in Adam all die, so in Christ all shall be made alive"; that in that place, which is called the place of Calvary, that is, the place of the head, the head of the human race might find resurrection together with the whole people through the resurrection of the Lord the Savior, who there suffered and rose again. For it was unfitting that, while many born from him should receive remission of sins and obtain the benefit of the resurrection, he himself, the father of all men, should not rather obtain grace of this kind.
[§127] And they gave him vinegar to drink mixed with gall; and when he had tasted it, he would not drink (27, 34).
For it was enough for us that he should only taste it on our behalf, just as he tasted a death no longer than the span of three days, so also the vinegar mixed with gall. But another wine, not mixed with gall nor with any other contrary thing, he took and drank, and "giving thanks" he gave it to the disciples and promised that he would drink "it new in the kingdom" of God.
[§128] And after they had crucified him, they divided his garments among themselves, casting lots, and sitting down they kept watch over him (27, 35. 36).
And there are even now those who indeed do not possess him, but possess his garments — the words set down in the Scriptures — and not even these in full but only in part, though the prophet foretold this very mystery which has now been fulfilled. But whether any of his garments was torn apart in that division, or whether each of them remained whole as it had been, and what kind those garments were, we do not read in the three evangelists; but in John we learn that "the soldiers, after they had crucified Christ, took his garments and made four parts, to each soldier a part, but the tunic, since it was not sewn together but woven from the top throughout the whole, they said to one another: let us not tear it apart, but let us cast lots for it". Not all of them, therefore, received it, but only the one who obtained it by lot. And if someone were to discuss the difference between those who possess the garments of the Lord, he will without doubt find that there are some who, in their doctrines, even though they do not possess him, nevertheless possess the "tunic" woven from the top "throughout the whole", while others possess not even this but only some small portion of his garment.
And consider this, that according to Matthew indeed Jesus, taking "vinegar mixed with gall", tasted it and "would not drink", but according to Mark, when "wine mingled with myrrh was given to him", "he did not take it".
[§129] And sitting down they kept watch over him there. And the soldiers indeed kept watch over the body, having been assigned by the chief priests, as though it were liable to be stolen away by his disciples if it were not guarded; but the divine dispensation raised him up and made not only two or three to be witnesses of his resurrection, but far more. For "he was seen by Cephas, then by the eleven, then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at once", "and last of all" by Paul. And it was no small sign of his resurrection, that he was seen by so many — by those who took up the danger of proclaiming him alive among the peoples who had demanded him for the cross. And now new chief priests (namely the sons of those chief priests) crucify the word of truth set down in the Scriptures by their false expositions, and slay it with lies; but the word of truth, because among them indeed it is slain yet lives in its own nature, always finds and chooses for itself vessels in which it may rise again and live and still confound its own slayers, shown by many testimonies to be alive.
[§130] And they placed above his head his charge written out: this is Jesus, the king of the Jews (27, 37).
"Whether in pretense or in truth Christ is proclaimed," and every script bears witness to his kingdom, whether of the Greeks or of the Romans or of the Hebrews, and for a crown above his head let there be written: this is Jesus, the king of the Jews, and let no other cause of his death be found (for indeed there was none), let this alone be held: that he was king of the Jews, concerning which he also spoke, saying: "but I have been appointed king by him over Zion, his holy mountain"; and the chief of the priests indeed, according to the letter of the law, bore upon his head the shape of a sign, "the sanctification of the Lord" written on the plate, but the true chief of the priests and king, Jesus, on the cross indeed has written: this is the king of the Jews, yet ascending to the Father and receiving the Father into himself, in place of letters and in place of a name he has him who is named, and he has him as a crown, having been made worthy of him and made a house worthy of God the Father, he alone can sufficiently contain the Father.
[§131] Then they crucified with him two robbers, one on the right and one on the left (27, 38).
The Lord, crucified among robbers like the robbers themselves, fulfilled the prophecy that says of him: "and he was reckoned among the wicked". And it is possible to see his disciples, giving testimony to the worship of God which was introduced through him, being reckoned "among the wicked" and being crucified with them, or enduring the remaining sufferings, just as those men did. For the world and the spirit that is in it always persecutes the highest men and punishes indeed the highest in wickedness for the benefit of the many, but the highest in virtue, because this world is not worthy of those who consider not "the things that are seen", but "the things that are not seen", and who despise it, just as also of old the saints walked "in sheepskins and in goatskins, destitute, afflicted, wandering in deserts, in mountains, and in caves, and in the dens of the earth, of whom the world was not worthy".
[§132] And as they passed by they blasphemed him, wagging their heads and saying: aha, you who were destroying the temple and rebuilding it in three days; free yourself, if you are the Son of God, come down from the cross. Likewise also the chief priests, mocking him with the scribes and the elders and the Pharisees, said: he saved others, himself he cannot save; if he is the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross and we believe him. He trusts in God; he will free him now if he wills him; for he said, that I am the Son of God (27, 39—43).
No one who stands blasphemes Jesus, nor anyone who walks aright; for it was those passing by who blasphemed him (or, as the Greek has it, those going past), who also, once the fence of the vineyard has been broken down by God, gather as their vintage those who have remained; for it is written: "Why have you cast down its fence, and all who pass by the way gather it as their vintage?" So long, therefore, as anyone has not passed by the way nor turned aside from the way, or, standing, can say to God: you have set "my feet upon a rock", he does not blaspheme Jesus; but if he has fallen or gone past or crossed over or turned aside, then he blasphemes him. As, further, those who have fallen into evil works, and those who have forsaken "the eternal bounds" and the way of the heavenly church, and are tossed and carried about "by every wind of doctrine in the deceit of men, in craftiness for the contriving of error". For if anyone should say that all heresies are passing by and turning aside, he will not sin, for which reason they too are counted among those passing by and blaspheme Jesus, having no firm head, but wagging it up and down, since they are not prudent nor have their eyes in their head, in which they ought to have had them, as the Preacher (Ecclesiastes) says: "the eyes of the wise man are in his head". It is, therefore, the work of those passing by and turning aside to blas- pheme Jesus the Son of God, because "no one speaking in the Spirit of God says: anathema to Jesus".
Now there are various sayings of the blasphemers, one blasphemy of which is that which is uttered by those who neither understand nor hear the things that are said nor concerning what they make their assertions: for Jesus said: "destroy this temple, and I in three days will raise it up", but those passing by, as "false witnesses" against Jesus, said what had not been said concerning him, assailing him: aha, you who destroy the temple of God, and in three days rebuild it. For he does not himself destroy the temple, but what others destroy he himself builds; whether "the temple of his own body", which had been handed over to death by the Jews, or the temple of his witnesses and of all who had the word of God in them and died from the ambushes of the impious on account of their piety (for "the hour comes when all who are in the tombs will hear the voice of the Son of God and will rise again"). And not only in that which they said: he who destroys the temple, did they lie, but also in that which they said: "and I in three days will rebuild it". For neither did he say that he would rebuild the temple, but that he would raise it up; for the word of building does not indicate a sudden work, but the word of raising up does indicate it.
And those indeed who were deriding him said save yourself, but he (receiving power from the Father) both did this and more: for to all who receive his word he showed his salvation. And they indeed, deriding, said: if you are the Son of God, come down from the cross, but he did not show himself the Son of God to those deriding him, yet he showed it to those believing in him, after he had dispensed the things which it behooved him to dispense in those three days, after, descending to the lower regions "put to death in the body but made alive in the spirit, he preached to the spirits who were in prison, who had not believed at some time, when the patience of God was awaited in the days of Noah while the ark was being built, in which few, that is eight souls, were saved through water". And he was not left there (as he himself said: "for you will not leave my soul in hell"), but it behooved him both to ascend to his own Father and God, that "ascending on high" he might take captivity captive and receive "gifts among men", and after these things show himself stronger than death, saying to it: "where, O death, is your sting?"
And likewise (while the rest were passing by and blaspheming him) the chief priests too and the scribes, themselves also passing by, said to him, overcome by the mighty works done by him before: he saved others, himself he cannot save (clearly not believing that he who was able to save others was much more able to save himself as well), and they promised that they would believe in him as in the King of Israel, if he were seen by them coming down from the cross. But he did not care to do anything unworthy on account of the injury of derision, nor to do what was being said by them apart from reason and order.
[§133] And the robbers who were crucified with him reproached him with the same thing (27, 44).
And in commenting on John we have explained, as best we could, concerning the two robbers who were crucified with Christ, who according to Matthew indeed and Mark both reproached him on the cross, but according to Luke, who says that "one of the hanging robbers blasphemed him, saying: You are the Christ; save yourself and us. But the other, answering, rebuked him,
saying: Do you not fear God, seeing that you are in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we receive things worthy of our deeds; but this man has done nothing evil. And he said to Jesus: Remember me when you come into your kingdom. But Jesus, answering, said to him who had rebuked the one blaspheming: "Amen I say to you: today you shall be with me in paradise".
It is fitting, therefore, that at first indeed both robbers should be understood to have blasphemed the Lord, but after this that one of them was converted and believed, pondering within himself both about these miracles which he heard had been done by him, and perhaps also seeing the change of the air and the darkness that came about, unusual and not such as was frequently accustomed to happen.
Or perhaps, as we said in that place too, these two robbers are different — of whom one was blaspheming him while the other rebuked the one blaspheming — and different were those two robbers who both blasphemed.
But that robber who was saved can be a mystery of those who after many iniquities believed in Christ and said: We have been crucified together with Christ and conformed to the death of Christ, and who always say to the Son of God: "Remember" us "when you come into your kingdom, and therefore" they are "in paradise" with him.
[§134] And from the sixth hour there was darkness over the whole earth until the ninth hour (27, 45). From this text certain people malign the truth of the Gospel, saying: how can what is said be true according to the text, namely that there was darkness over the whole earth from the sixth hour until the ninth, since no history records that this happened? And they say that, just as usually happens in an eclipse of the sun, so an eclipse of the sun occurred at that time.
Now an eclipse of the sun has always occurred throughout the ages at its own time. But the eclipse of the sun which is wont to happen according to the customary course of the seasons as they run does not occur at any other time than at the conjunction of the sun and the moon, when the moon, running beneath, obstructs the rays of the sun by coming to meet it, and by its encounter blunts its light. But at the time when Christ suffered it is manifest that there was no conjunction of the moon with the sun, since it was the Passover season, which is customary to keep when the moon has the fullness of the sun and is present the whole night.
How then could there be an eclipse of the sun, when the moon was full and had the fullness of the sun?
But certain believers, wishing to introduce some defense against these arguments, hard pressed by the words of those who professed such things, spoke thus: if no new portent had happened at the time of Christ's passion but everything according to custom, it would be believed that that eclipse of the sun had happened according to custom; but now, since it is established that the other portents which happened then did not happen according to custom, but were new and wondrous (for indeed "the veil of the temple was torn into two parts from top to bottom, and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split, and the tombs were opened and many bodies of the sleeping saints rose again"), it is manifest that that eclipse of the sun too, consequently, in keeping with the other new portents, happened contrary to custom. Again, against these things the "sons of this age" who are "wiser than the sons of light in their generation" say such things as this: grant that that eclipse of the sun happened contrary to custom at a time not ancient, under the rule of the Romans, so that darkness fell over the whole earth until the ninth hour — how is it that no one of the Greeks, no one of the barbarians, recorded that so marvelous a thing had happened at that time, especially those who wrote and noted chronicles, whenever any such new thing ever happened, but only your authors have written this? And a certain Phlegon wrote in his Chronicles that it happened in the rule of Tiberius Caesar,
but he did not indicate that this happened at the full moon.
See therefore whether this objection is not strong and able to move every wise man (who agrees neither with those who say these things nor with those who write those things, but hears everything with reason and judgment), and it is indeed not hard … and every one of the faithful (who indeed believes, yet does not believe with reason and with judgment), so that he may be so constant in faith that, even if they bring a thousand charges against the faith of the Gospel wishing to destroy our faith, he may in no part of them be shaken by the words of those who (pretending to believe the Gospel scriptures) through the occasion of one or another question, whether difficult or perhaps even insoluble, opposing the scriptures, hasten to take away the faith of Christ and of his Gospels from our soul, introducing certain moral matters and wishing to transfer the wonders accomplished by the power of God to certain secular customs. I have therefore judged it good, taking up the good purpose of those who desire to be constant in the faith, to find solutions to their accusations (as far as there is power in me from God) on behalf of the truth of the Gospel, so that the faithful may be fortified in faith not only by simple faith, but also by the reason of faith.
We say therefore that Matthew and Mark did not say that an eclipse of the sun then happened, and neither did Luke.
according to very many copies which have it thus: "and it was about the sixth hour, and darkness fell over the whole earth until the ninth hour, and the sun was darkened". But in certain copies it does not have: "darkness fell and the sun was darkened"; but thus: "darkness fell over the whole earth, the sun failing". And perhaps someone ventured (as though wishing to say something more manifest) to put, in place of: "and the sun was darkened", "the sun failing", supposing that the darkness could not have happened otherwise than by "the sun failing".
But I rather think that those who lie in wait for the Church of Christ altered this word, so that it read "darkness fell, the sun failing", in order that the Gospels might plausibly be refuted according to the contrivances of those wishing to refute them. I judge therefore that, just as the other signs which happened in his passion happened in Jerusalem only, so also the darkness was made over the whole earth of Judea only until the ninth hour. And the things I say happened in Jerusalem only are these: that "the veil of the temple was torn", that "the earth quaked", that "the rocks were split", that "the tombs were opened". For neither outside Judea "were the rocks split", nor "were tombs opened" other than only those which were in Jerusalem or perhaps in the land of Judea,
nor did any other "earth quake" then except the earth of Jerusalem — for it is nowhere recorded that every element of the earth quaked at that time, so that (for example) both those who were in Ethiopia and those in India and in Scythia should feel it (which, had it happened, would without doubt be found in some histories of those who wrote in chronicles any new events). Just as, therefore, when it is said "the earth quaked", this refers to the earth of Jerusalem or (if one wishes to extend it more widely) to the earth of Judea, so also the darkness that fell from the sixth hour until the ninth over the whole earth was made over the whole earth of Judea, or certainly over Jerusalem only. Thus, therefore, whoever understands it this way understands it without fault, so that he may not, wishing to display the greatness of the miracle, fall into the mockery of the wise of "this age", and work unbelief rather than faith in wise men.
But someone says against these things: if the darkness then over the whole earth of Judea and Jerusalem was not made from an eclipse of the sun but from another cause, show the cause. To such we answer this: first indeed, that the evangelists did not at all name the sun in this place, but only that darkness fell over the whole earth. If therefore darkness fell over the whole earth with the sun not named, without doubt it follows to understand that certain most dark clouds, and perhaps not one but many and very great ones, ran together over the earth of Judea and Jerusalem to cover the rays of the sun,
and therefore deep darkness fell from the sixth hour until the ninth. But since we have come to such a place, we say, lest perhaps also the "palpable darkness" in Egypt was made in this manner for "three days", not from an eclipse of the sun, but either because dark clouds ran together into one, or because the air there then became thicker over the Egyptians only — for "to all the sons of Israel", as the scripture testifies, "there was light in all the places in which they were dwelling".
For it is also impossible in an eclipse of the sun, which happens from the coming together of the moon to the sun, for darkness to be made for "three" continuous "days"; and it would be believed that there was some other cause of the darkness in Egypt, if the sun had even been named, or as though darkened at that time. But now the scripture of Exodus says nothing else except that "Moses stretched out his hand to heaven, and there was darkness and gloom and the rest over the whole land of Egypt for three days; and no one saw his brother, nor did anyone rise from his bed for three days".
But as to my saying over the whole earth of Judea or Jerusalem, so that we may not understand every element of the earth, this is the proof, which is written in the third book of Kingdoms, where Obadiah the steward of Ahab said to Elijah: "what have I sinned, that you have given your servant into the hands of Ahab, that he may put me to death? As your God lives, if there is a nation or kingdom where my lord has not sent to seek you, and I said: he is not here, and he burned the kingdom and its regions, because he did not find you". For who would be so stony, reading these things, as to suppose that Ahab king of Israel sent into every nation of the world and into every kingdom of the whole earth seeking Elijah, and burned wherever it was said: Elijah is not here? But without doubt those things were said hyperbolically, showing that he sought him abundantly among the nations that were around Judea, according as he was able to seek. And we have said also in other places that, since two general creatures were made on the sixth day, first indeed the animals, and then man made "according to the image of God", it follows that that sixth day too should be understood as then having been divided into two kinds of creature, so that before the sixth hour the animals should be understood to have been created, but at the sixth hour the Lord said: "let us make man to our image" and made him then. … on which account it was fitting that, for the salvation of that same man, he who was dying should be hung up at that very sixth hour, and from the sixth hour
for this reason the darkness should be made over the whole earth until the ninth. And just as, when Moses stretched out his hand "to heaven", "darkness was made over the Egyptians", who held the servants of God in servitude, an image of the future darkness which was to seize the Egyptians, similarly also when Christ at the sixth hour stretched out his hands on the cross to heaven over the people who had cried out: "take this man from the earth", and "crucify, crucify him", darkness was made, and they were deprived of all light.
And that darkness was an image of the future darkness which was to seize the Jewish nation, because they dared to lay their hands upon the true light.
Whence from that time all that nation has been filled with darkness, as the prophet says: "let their eyes be darkened that they may not see".
Likewise under Moses "there was darkness and gloom over the whole land of Egypt for three days; and no one saw his brother, nor did anyone rise from his bed for three days; but to all the sons of Israel there was light in all the places in which they were dwelling". But under Christ darkness fell over the whole earth of Judea for three hours, but there was light over all the rest of the earth. Which everywhere illumines the whole Church of God in Christ.
And if until the ninth hour there was darkness over the whole earth of Judea, it is manifest that light shone upon them again, because "when the multitude of the Gentiles has entered in, then all Israel shall be saved". But that the darkness was made over the whole earth of Judea for three hours, this shows that on account of their sins they were deprived of the light of three hours: of the light of God the Father and of the splendor of Christ and of the illumination of the Holy Spirit.
[§135] Now about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying: Eli, Eli, lama sabacthani? that is: My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? But those who were standing there and heard it said that this man is calling Elijah (27, 46. 47).
It must be inquired, in a manner worthy of the Lord, what that great voice of Christ was—whether great by reason of things signifying great mysteries, or great by the sensible and bodily hearing of a great voice. But I think that every voice of Christ, the Son of God, is great, even if it be soft; and Scripture bears witness to this very thing especially in those places in which it wishes to raise up the hearer, so that he may pass beyond that which many are able to understand in such passages, and may not remain in it (although according to the simple understanding it may have in it some truth), so that he may be able to understand something in a manner worthy on account of the great voice of the Lord. Since, therefore, by these words he shows that there is something hidden and great, when he cries out to God, saying, why hast thou forsaken me, therefore it must be inquired what it is that was forsaken by God. Christ; for it is not permissible to believe that he lies when he says: why have you forsaken me.
And some, out of a religious coloring on Jesus' behalf, and because they cannot explain what it means for Christ to be forsaken by God, suppose and say: it is indeed true what was said, yet it was said out of humility. But we, seeing him who had been established "in the form of God" descending from a greatness of this kind and emptying himself through this, that he "took on the form of a servant", and seeing in these things the will of him who sent him to such conditions, understand that, as regards those things in which there had been the form of the invisible God and the image according to the Father, he was forsaken by the Father when he "took on the form of a servant", and he was forsaken for the sake of men, so that he might take on such and so great things, so that he might come "even unto death", "and the death of the cross", which among men is seen to be the most shameful. For the extremity of his being forsaken came about when they crucified him and placed above his head, as if mocking him, letters saying: "this is Jesus the king of the Jews". And that too was an extremity of his being forsaken, that he was crucified among robbers, and that "those passing by blasphemed him, wagging their heads over him", and that the chief men with the scribes were saying: "he saved others, himself he cannot save", and still further that too, that "even the robbers reproached him" on the cross. Therefore you will be able clearly to understand what it is that he says: why hast thou forsaken me? — making a comparison of that glory which he had with the Father to the confusion which, despising it, he endured on the cross. For his throne was "as the sun in the sight of God, and as the perfect moon for ever; and his witness in heaven was faithful". But afterward, for those on whose behalf he says: why hast thou forsaken me, he added further, saying: "but thou hast repelled and brought to nothing, and hast put off thy Christ, thou hast overthrown the covenant of thy servant, thou hast profaned his holiness upon the earth", and the rest. And so long as there was light from the sun, even while enduring such great and such grievous things He did not say Why hast Thou forsaken Me?; but after He saw that darkness had come "over all the land of Judaea until the ninth hour," He said with His great voice Why hast Thou forsaken Me, wishing to show by these words this: that Thou hast forsaken Me willingly, Father, and hast delivered Me up, emptied out, to such calamities, in order that the people who had been held in honor with Thee might receive what it dared to do against Me — filling up the "measure of its fathers," and the things it did against the prophets — so that it might be deprived of the light of Thy watchful care and be brought into darkness, as though Thou, O God, wert now in no way present with them. But also for the salvation of the Gentiles Thou hast forsaken Me, that by the "trespass" of Israel there might come "the salvation of the Gentiles." Yet what so good a thing did those who believed from among the Gentiles do, that with My "precious blood" poured out upon the earth for them I should purchase them from the evil one who had held them fast? And why hast Thou "turned away Thy face, and I have become troubled," so that I say: "My soul is sorrowful even unto death"? Or what such worthy thing are those men going to do, for whom I suffer these things, that I should suffer these things for them? — even as the prophet also foretold beforehand concerning this very thing, as though crying out to Thee and saying: "What profit," Father, has been made to men "in My blood, while I go down into corruption? Shall the dust confess to Thee, or shall it declare Thy truth?" But perhaps also, seeing the sins of the men for whom He was suffering, He said: Why hast Thou forsaken Me, that I should become "like one who gathers stubble in the harvest, and like one who gleans grapes in the vintage, when there is no cluster to eat of the first-fruits?" And these things I say, "because the God-fearing man has perished from the earth, and there is none who sets right among men." Wherefore do not suppose that the Savior said these things after the manner of men, because of the calamity that had laid hold of Him upon the cross. For if thou takest it so, thou wilt not be one who hears the great voice in which He spoke these things, nor wilt thou seek things worthy of a divine voice. Therefore "the darkness indeed was made from the sixth hour over the whole earth until the ninth"; but before the ninth hour was ended, the Lord cried out about it with a loud voice, saying the things that are written, as if demanding that the sun of the earth should rise, dissolving in her the darkness of the three hours according to what we have set forth above.
[§136] But some standing there and hearing him said: This man is calling Elijah … but the others said: Let us see whether Elijah comes and delivers him (27, 47—49).
As though they had heard that he called upon God, and had marveled at his prayer on the cross, greater than was the prayer of Jonah praying in the belly of the whale, and had been profited by it, so that even when set amid the most extreme calamities they might not cease to pray to God. And I say that the prayer of Christ was greater than that of Jonah in the belly of the whale on account of the magnitude of the things that are shown forth from it, and on account of the great effect of his voluntary passion.
[§137] And immediately one of them ran up, took a sponge, filled it with vinegar, put it on a reed, and gave it to him to drink. And thus he fulfilled in himself the prophecy that spoke of him: "and they gave gall for my food, and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink". For this reason too, according to John, when Jesus had received the vinegar with the gall, he said: "it is finished" — this also, which the Scripture had foretold concerning me. And one may with pleasure apply this text against those who have written or do write malicious things against Christ, of whom Isaiah says: "woe to those who write malicious things; for in writing they write malicious things" (I speak of those who have left behind certain writings, speaking "iniquity on high"). And one will use this text when he sees them gathering from certain things they have heard — whether of heathen sayings or of barbarous discourses — and composing a narrative like a kind of sponge, filling it not with any drinkable word nor with wine that gladdens "the heart of man" nor with the water of "refreshment", but with a kind of contrary and harmful and undrinkable intelligible vinegar; and this sponge they put upon the reed of their own writing and (so far as in them lies) inflict injuries upon Jesus by a drink of this kind. And some indeed give Jesus "wine mingled with gall to drink", which Jesus the Son of God will not drink, but others give not wine but vinegar. And perhaps those who, so far as ecclesiastical doctrine is concerned, have right understanding, but live wickedly, give him "wine mingled with gall to drink"; while those who apply to Christ wisdoms alien from the truth, as though he were speaking them, these fill a sponge with vinegar, put it upon a reed, and give him to drink. But there are also those who, as John writes, "offer to his mouth both vinegar and gall". And perhaps those who merely have wrong understanding fill a sponge with vinegar and put it upon the reed of their own writing and give him to drink; but those who both understand wrongly concerning the dispensations of Christ and live wickedly, these, "putting a sponge full of vinegar with gall and hyssop" upon the reed of their writing, offer it "to his mouth". But he who will not even drink his "wine" because of the admixture of gall, will much more not drink "vinegar", nor "vinegar mingled with gall". Therefore let us, receiving from our Savior Jesus himself (who is the "true vine") wine pure from all sharpness and bitterness, wine which "gladdens the heart of man" and the heart of the Son of God himself, give him and his disciples to drink of it, so that he may say of us who give him and his disciples good drink: "I thirsted and you gave me drink". Let us also receive the "water of refreshment" with which "the good shepherd" nourishes the just, so that those who are fed by him may say: "he brought us up beside the water of refreshment".
[§138] But Jesus, crying out again with a loud voice, gave up the spirit (27, 50).
As far as Matthew is concerned—who says that Jesus cried out again with a loud voice and gave up the spirit, but does not make clear what that loud voice was which he cried out again—one could say that he cried out again the same voice which he had cried out above when he said: "My God, my God." But because Luke clearly writes what voice he cried out when he gave up the spirit, saying: "Into thy hands I commend my spirit,"
it is to be understood also in this place that the voice which he cried out again as he gave up the spirit was this one: "Into thy hands I commend my spirit."
If, therefore, to give up the spirit, or (as John writes) to hand over the "spirit," were the very same thing as to die, then what is said in this place, he gave up the spirit, would have to be understood in a plain sense. But now, since the wise define death to be nothing other than the separation of the soul from the body, let us consider whether perhaps it is one thing simply to die, and another thing to cry out with a loud voice and give up the spirit (as the present passage of Matthew expounds it), or to commend the "spirit" "into the hands" of God and release the "spirit" (according to what Luke says), or to bow the "head" and hand over the "spirit" (as John expounds it). And to die indeed belongs to all men, even the wicked, since the souls of all men are separated from the body, even of the unjust, who cannot say those things which Christ said as he went forth from his body. But to cry out with a loud voice and thus to give up the "spirit"—which is to commend the "spirit" "into the hands" of God and thus to release the "spirit," or to bow the "head" and hand over the "spirit"—belongs only to the saints, who by good works have prepared God for themselves as Christ also did, so that as they go forth from the world they may be able confidently to commend or hand over their spirit into the hands of God.
If, therefore, we have understood what it is to cry out with a loud voice and thus to give up the spirit, that is, to commend it "into the hands of God" (for so we expounded above, setting forth the exposition of the evangelist Luke), if we have understood what it is to bow the "head" and hand over the "spirit," let us hasten to keep our life such that at our departure we too may be able to cry out with a loud voice and thus to give up the spirit, or to bow the "head" and hand over the "spirit," like Jesus who "bowed his head" and, as it were, resting it upon the bosom of the Father, went forth—the Father who was able to cherish and strengthen it in his bosom. But if you wish to hear what it profited Christ to have cried out with a loud voice and thus to have given up the spirit, that is, to have commended the "spirit" "into the hands" of the Lord and thus to have given it up, or to have bowed the "head" upon the bosom of the Father and to have handed over the "spirit," hear what the prophet says: for "on this account" "he did not leave his soul in hell, nor did he give" him "to see corruption." If, therefore, we too conduct ourselves in such a way that we can commend our spirits into the hands of God, or bow our head upon the bosom of God and thus hand over our spirit, then without doubt he will neither leave our souls in hell nor give us to remain in corruption forever. But he who called him back from the dead after the third day will call us back too at the opportune time; and he who granted him that his flesh should not see "corruption" will grant to us—not indeed that our flesh should not see "corruption," but that it should be freed from corruption at the opportune time—since he indeed "did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth," but we shall be just if at least at some time we depart from our sins.
Then, since crying out again with a loud voice and saying: "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit," he gave up the spirit, therefore, as that spirit was given up, signs were made over him, and prodigies testifying to his dignity, in this manner: and behold, the veil of the temple was rent into two parts from top to bottom.
As long indeed as Jesus had not undertaken death on behalf of men, being appointed "himself the expectation of the nations," the veil of the temple was veiling the interior parts of the temple;
for it was fitting that these be veiled, until he who alone could reveal them should make them manifest to those who wished to see them, so that through the death of Jesus Christ, who destroyed the death of believers, those who had been freed from death might be able to behold the things that are within the veil. But what those things are, it is not for this time to expound, since they involve much and difficult interpretation. It is more fittingly appropriate to expound them in the third book of Kingdoms and in the second of Chronicles, in which it is written concerning the temple and concerning those things which are placed within the veil. Here, however, only this much is written: that the veil of the temple was rent into two parts, from top to bottom.
But someone who understands the scriptures not carelessly will inquire, and will observe that there are two veils—one indeed inner, which veils the holy of holies, the other outer, whether of the tabernacle or of the temple, which were figures of the holy tabernacle that the Father prepared from the beginning. Of these veils of the temple, one was rent into two parts from top to bottom when "Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, gave up the spirit"—showing thereby (as I think) this mystery: that in the passion of the Lord the Savior the veil which was on the outside was rent from top to bottom, so that with the veil rent from the top (that is, from the beginning of the world) to the bottom (that is, to the end of it), the mysteries might be made public which up until the coming of Christ had reasonably been hidden. And unless we knew "in part," but rather all things were now already made manifest to the beloved disciples of Christ while still constituted in the body, both veils would have had to be rent, that is, the one that is on the outside and the inner one. But now, since we are being led forward to the knowledge of new things, therefore the veil which was on the outside is meanwhile rent from top to bottom, so that "when that which is perfect has come" and the rest of the things that remained have been revealed, then the second veil too may be taken away, so that we may see also the things which within the second veil are hidden—the true ark of the covenant and, as its very nature is, that we may see the cherubim and the true propitiatory and the deposit of the manna in the golden vessel, and all things manifest and greater than those which through the law of Moses had been shown, concerning which God said to him: "thou shalt make all things according to the form of those which have been shown to thee on the mount."
There is therefore nothing to wonder at, that the veil of the temple was rent which veiled the interior mysteries, so that the disciples of Christ (receiving spiritual eyes) might see those things which before Jesus had been shown to none. For no one save the high priest alone sees the things that were within the second veil. But even Aaron and those who were of him had neither the power nor the dignity to reveal to any other what they themselves saw; but he alone who "with an oath" was made high priest "forever according to the order of Melchizedek" was able, through the dispensation of his death, to rend the veil of the temple into two parts from top to bottom, so that the things which were within might be seen by eyes which are able to see such things.
[§139] And the earth was shaken and the rocks were split and the tombs were opened and many bodies of the saints who were sleeping rose again; and going out from the tombs after his resurrection they entered into the holy city and appeared to many (27, 51ᵇ—53).
And the earth was shaken, that is, all flesh, when the new word and new things according to the new covenant, and the new song, and all things new and heavenly came upon it, as the prophet too says in a certain place about this very thing: "all who saw them were confounded", that is, the disciples of Christ, "and every man feared". Likewise through another prophet the Lord says: "yet once more I will move the heaven and the earth and the sea and the dry land". But having said a little about the shaking of the earth, let us not unprofitably speak again also about the rocks split in the passion of the Lord the Savior, which were a mystery (as I think) of the prophets; for the law and the prophets were made manifest at the coming of Christ; and for this reason, when men "turn to the Lord" "while Moses is read, the veil which had been placed over their heart is taken away", and because "in the reading of the old covenant a veil had been placed, in Christ it is abolished". Now therefore the rocks have been opened and split, that we may see the spiritual mysteries placed in their depths. And we prove that the rocks then split are the prophets, first indeed from the fact that "Christ" is called the spiritual "rock", and it stands to reason that all imitators of Christ are likewise called rocks.
Just as they are also called "the light of the world" from the fact that their Lord himself is the "light" of the "world", and next from the fact that Peter too was called a rock by the Lord himself, when it is said to him: "you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it". But this is shown most of all from the fact that all those against whom the "gates of hell" do not prevail, who have in themselves the work of the name of rock (that is, the apostles and the prophets) are themselves also rocks, and are the foundations of those who are built upon them, according to what the apostle says: "built up upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ our Lord himself being the highest cornerstone".
But those are built up upon the apostles and prophets most of all who are of the immaculate Church and who admire the apostles of Christ and do not despise the prophets, but examine also their scriptures.
Now let us speak also about the tombs that were opened. "The hour came", according to what Christ had promised, "that those who are in the tombs may hear the voice of the Son of God, and may live". Therefore, as they heard "the voice of the Son of God", the tombs were opened, which indeed had been closed as long as the dead were in them, but were opened so that those who had risen again might go out from the tombs, not before the resurrection of the firstborn "from the dead", but after his own resurrection, and, rising, might indeed abandon the tombs, but enter into the holy city, and appear and be made manifest to many who wish and are able to see the holy city of God and the bodies of the saints raised up in it. For the bodies of sinful souls, that is, of souls dead to God, are called tombs. But when by the grace of God souls of this kind have been raised up to faith, their bodies, which had before been tombs of dead souls, are made bodies of holy souls and are seen to go out from themselves, when they have ceased to be tombs of dead souls and have begun to be bodies of holy souls. Great things therefore have come about from the fact that "Jesus cried with a loud voice and gave up the spirit", and always these same great things come about daily. For when is the "veil" of the "temple" not rent for the saints "from the top down to the bottom" and from the beginning to the end, so as to reveal what is held within? When is the earth too not moved and shaken for those who are worthy of salvation—the earth that before the death of Christ was immovable? When are the rocks too not split, according to what we have handed down? Thus always both the tombs are opened and many bodies (of the saints indeed, but sleeping) rise and go out from the tombs (yet after the resurrection of him who is in them, "who died for us") and follow him who rose again and walk "in newness of life" with him. Thus too those who are worthy to have their conversation in the heavens, saying: "but our conversation is in the heavens", enter into the holy city at each several season, and their light shines "before men", and they appear to many who see and understand their "good works", and who therefore glorify "their Father who is in the heavens". But we must also say concerning these things, and understand, that indeed every letter of the Gospel, as a letter, gives life to the evangelical scribes (that I may so call them); but the spirit, which surpasses the nature of the letters, illuminates more, with more divine motions, those from whom the Gospel is not veiled; for they do everything in order to see the mysteries which come to pass in their soul through the resurrection of Christ. For he too who believes the scriptures is benefited with a certain benefit, but he is filled with greater knowledge who sees that the veil of the scripture is rent from the top down to the bottom, and sees the things that are within it. And blessed too is he for whom the earth and all earthly things are moved (for this reason indeed they were also moved by Christ): his feet shall not be moved, nor will he say: "but my feet were almost moved". And how much more blessed is he who sees with the eyes of the soul the split rocks, than those who then saw these things come to pass bodily! But if anyone, seeing both the tombs opened and the many bodies of the sleeping saints rising and going out from the tombs after the resurrection of the body of Christ, is made altogether a stranger to the tombs and is made a member of the household of the city of God, having entered into it, how much more will he be benefited beyond those who saw these prodigies bodily? And I think that he who enters into the holy city and appears to many because he is in it differs greatly from him who believes according to the history and does not ascend from simple faith to the higher mysteries.
[§140] But the centurion, and those who were with him keeping guard over Jesus, when they saw the earthquake and the things that were happening, feared greatly, saying: Truly this man was the Son of God (27, 54).
But Mark writes thus: "The centurion who was standing there, seeing that he expired crying out, said: Truly this man was the Son of God"; but Luke: "When the centurion saw the things that were done, he glorified God, saying: Truly this man was righteous." According to Mark, indeed, the centurion marveled not because "the veil of the temple had been rent from the top even to the bottom," nor because the other signs had come about which Matthew relates (that is, because "the earth was shaken," because "the rocks were split," or "the tombs were opened"). It is therefore worthwhile to consider what happened afterward, over and above what is written in Mark, such that the centurion marveled, saying: "Truly this man was the Son of God." And see whether we may say, according to one manner of understanding, that he marveled at those things which had been spoken by him to God with a great cry and with loftiness of feeling, in accordance with what he was able to understand; … suspecting this, he marveled and said: "Truly this man was the Son of God." But according to another manner, since perhaps Pilate, wishing to gratify the whole people who had said: "Crucify, crucify him," and fearing a tumult of the entire people, did not command — according to the custom of the Romans regarding those who are crucified — that Jesus' body be struck beneath the armpits, which those who condemn men found guilty of the greater crimes sometimes do (for those who are not struck after their fixing to the cross undergo a greater torment, since they go on living with the utmost torture, sometimes indeed the whole night through and still, after it, the whole day). Jesus therefore, since he had not been struck, and it was expected that, hanging long upon the cross, he would suffer greater torments, prayed to the Father and was heard, and immediately, as soon as he cried out to the Father, he was received; or, as one who had "the power" of "laying down" his "soul," he laid it down when he himself willed — which prodigy, when it was done, astonished the centurion, and he said: "Truly this man was the Son of God." For it was a miracle that after three hours he was received who perhaps would have lived two days upon the cross, according to the custom regarding those who are indeed hung up but not struck, so that it might be seen to have been a benefit of God that he expired, and the merit of his prayer rather than the violence of the cross. That which Mark sets forth in what follows also signifies this very thing, when "Joseph" had gone in "to Pilate" and had asked for "the body of Jesus." For he speaks thus, that "Pilate marveled that he was already dead, and calling the centurion he asked him whether he was already dead"; and when he had heard it from the centurion, "he gave his body to Joseph." For if the custom which had been in force among the Romans concerning those crucified and struck through had been observed in the case of Christ, how would Pilate have marveled if he were already dead? See therefore whether it does not point to a new miracle, that he was already dead and that "Pilate called the centurion and asked whether he was already dead." And see whether Matthew too does not show that Christ's torment was of this kind, when he says: the centurion and those who were with him, keeping Jesus. But why were they keeping him, unless it were that, hanging longer on the cross, he might be tormented the more, neither slain nor taken down? Yet the centurion, according to Matthew, not only said of Jesus: truly this was the Son of God, but also feared him, since the earthquake cast him into fear. And perhaps too he knew by experience, from the earthquakes that occur among the nations, that this had been an earthquake, and at this he was astounded as he beheld it.
And observe that in Mark, where the centurion is reported to have seen no miracle, he calls Jesus a man, the son of God; but the one who was astonished at the tearing of the veil or at the earthquake does not say that he was a man but the son of God. Now the wording of Luke's composition also agrees with us as to the treatment we have made concerning Mark's Scripture, since he too writes thus: "truly this man was righteous." With him nothing else is mentioned except the veil: "seeing," he says, "what things were done, the centurion glorified God, saying: truly this man was righteous." And that some such thing happened at the time of Christ's condemnation, and that Pilate did not order the custom to be kept whereby Christ's body should be struck, John too makes plain, writing in this way, that "they asked Pilate that their legs might be broken and that they might be taken away." But what necessary would there have been to make a request and offer prayers about this, if it had been done according to custom? The Jews, therefore, took pity after the cruel condemnation of those who, so far as could be judged, were living in a terrible torment; and they broke the legs of the first, and likewise of the second. But Jesus had no need of their intercessions or of the prayers they offered to Pilate, and for this reason, when they came to Jesus, since he was already dead, they did not break his legs. Or perhaps the Jews did this not out of mercy, but chiefly on account of the sabbath, so that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath; for the day of that sabbath was a great one. These things we have discussed because of what is written, that the centurion, and they who were with him keeping watch over Jesus, seeing the earthquake, and the things that were done, feared and the rest. For it is likely that they saw how the veil of the temple was rent from top to bottom, and the other things showing forth the mystery of those matters which we have set forth above, and they feared greatly; for this is what is meant by what is said, greatly.
But see whether perhaps the passage admits a moral exposition also in this manner: since there are certain people who receive Christ and keep him; and if ever they see the veil torn according to what we have handed down, and the rocks split as we have expounded, and the tombs opened according to what we have expounded, and the bodies of the dead saints going forth from the tombs and entering into the holy city (that is, the Church), they are brought to the fear of God and bear witness to him, that he who suffered such things is the Son of God. And it will be no wonder if someone confesses that the Son of God is Word and Wisdom and Truth and all the things whatsoever that the Son of God is called. And praiseworthy is the one who is not troubled at those things which appear to have befallen him in a human manner, and confesses that he was the Son of God.
[§141] And there were many women there, watching from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him; among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee (27, 55. 56). They report that Isaiah prophesied concerning these women when he said: Women coming to the spectacle, come; for it is not a people having wisdom. For he calls women those who had been from afar and from afar were watching Jesus; he calls them to the word, that they may indeed forsake the senseless and forsaken people and come to the new covenant. And I judge those women to be blessed who are built up unto blessedness by the spectacle of the word and by the death of the body of Jesus; for everything that is in Christ, if it be truly seen, makes the beholder blessed.
Therefore they look upon the mortification of the body of Jesus and the manner in which he commended "his spirit" to the Father by his prayers. These first followed him from Galilee, and — that I may say it boldly (using the authority of the Scripture that teaches it) — they followed him from Galilee "of the Gentiles", not from a straight nor a firm one, but from one having a certain circuit (for this is what Galilee is understood to mean, that is, ROLLING or WHIRLING); and leaving this, they followed Jesus, not idly, but doing the things that were commanded by him, and they delighted him; for they followed him ministering.
And every soul that shares in some distribution of graces and in the Lord himself ministers to Jesus a ministry like the ministries of the angels, concerning whom it is written that "the angels, approaching, ministered to him".
Many therefore were watching Jesus then, but the chief ones are named, as being those who watched more attentively and ministered more fully and followed better: Mary Magdalene, more fitting to the interpretation of the name of her homeland, which is called Magdala (and that place is interpreted MAGNIFICATION).
And this Mary Magdalene was of magnification for no other reason than that she had followed Jesus and had ministered to him and had watched the mystery of his passion. And among the chief ones there was also
Mary the mother of James and Joseph, or (as Mark says) "the mother of James the less and of Joseph", according to the name of the patriarch Jacob, the SUPPLANTER of his brother, and of Joseph, over whom, when he was born, his mother said: "may the Lord add to me another son".
This one too, therefore, following the Lord and ministering and watching the dispensation of his passion, was so because she had been the mother of some faithful person — not of anyone great (such as the patriarch Jacob had been), but of a lesser one, and of another Joseph. And among the women there was also
the mother of the sons of Zebedee, perhaps some woman established in the ministry of THUNDER
on account of her faith and holy life, and because she followed the Lord and ministered to him and had been a beholder of all the things that had been done concerning him, for the sons of Zebedee were called "SONS OF THUNDER". For his sons were John and James: therefore John heard the words of the seven thunders, which, as being more eminent than all Scripture, he received a command not to write. But if it is proper also to conjecture and to state the name of the mother of the sons of Zebedee,
I say that this very woman had been called Salome, which means PEACEABLE. And I have conjectured this seeing that in Matthew and Mark three chief women are named, concerning whom the present discourse is held; and the present evangelist sets forth that two of them are "Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James", but that the third is called the mother of the sons of Zebedee; whereas in Mark that third one is called "Salome". And according to Mark, those who had followed Jesus from Galilee "went up to Jerusalem" with Christ.
For this is the end of those who forsake the Galilee "of the Gentiles" and follow Jesus, that they not only go up to Jerusalem, but also go up into it together with Jesus.
For this is what is signified by their being reported to have gone up together with Christ.
[§142] Now when it had become late, there came a certain rich man from Arimathea, by name Joseph, who himself also was a disciple of Jesus; this man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be given up (27, 57. 58).
He who asks for the body of the Lord from Pilate was not just anyone whatever, but a man rich with praiseworthy riches. And because, being appointed a decurion, he bore the mystery of the name of Christ in truth (which is the number ten), therefore he gladly, as for a great benefit, requested the body of Jesus from Pilate, and did not permit him to hang upon the tree. For this reason he is praised by the evangelists, because he had been "a just man and a good man" and a disciple of Jesus, and he rendered the fruit of his discipleship perhaps, as in many things, so also in the body of Christ, because he "was awaiting the kingdom of God", as Jesus had taught.
[§143] And having received the body, Joseph wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and laid it in his own new tomb which he had hewn out in the rock, and rolled a great stone to the door of the tomb and departed (27, 59. 60). In wrapping it in a clean linen cloth and laying it in a new tomb, where no dead man had lain, he was preserving the body of Jesus for an exceptional resurrection. But I think rather that that linen cloth possessed greater cleanness from the fact that the body of Christ was wrapped in it than it had before; for the body of Jesus, even set in death, cleansed—as the body of Jesus—everything whatsoever it touched, and all the more made new that new tomb which had been hewn in the rock. And do not suppose that it was written by chance and said by mere happenstance, that he wrapped the body in a clean linen cloth and laid it in a new tomb, and that that tomb had been hewn in the rock—a clean tomb, which was made cleaner by the body of Jesus than it had been before the body of Jesus was placed in it. But you will ask whether there are men having nothing more than the body of Jesus, new indeed and hewn in the rock, and are his clean tomb, and are therefore made safe. And consequently there are also others besides them who have Jesus living: and some of them have Jesus living even before the passion, but some have him rising from the dead; and some according to the way in which he appears to many and does not have "form nor comeliness", but others have him reformed into glory, and others see him ascending and hope to be caught up with him in a cloud, that they may be held "always" with him.
Therefore Matthew recorded that the tomb was new, and set forth plainly that it was hewn in the rock. And that it was new, free from every dead body, Luke and John made manifest, one of whom indeed said: "in which no one had yet been laid", and John: "in which no one had yet been laid"—clearly, if never had anyone been laid there, but afterward some were laid there; for what he says: "in which no one had yet been laid", is signified to those who consider this word carefully. We say then (lest perhaps we ought to understand this passage simply), that he who said: "we have been buried together with Christ through baptism" and have risen together with him, was himself also buried together, after Christ, with Christ in a new tomb and an intelligible one hewn in the rock, and all who have been buried together with Christ in baptism, that they may rise with him from the new tomb of the firstborn "from the dead and holding the primacy in all things". And Joseph rolled not many stones to the door of the tomb but one, and a great one. And a greater one than the power of those lying in wait could be, yet not greater than was the power of the angel descending "from heaven" and rolling away from it the "stone", and sitting "upon it"; since all things that are around the body of Jesus are clean and new, and not simply great but all "exceedingly" great.
[§144] Now Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were there, sitting opposite the tomb (27, 61).
After these things, the love of the two Marys, Magdalene and the mother of James and Joseph, bound them fast to the new tomb, on account of the body of Jesus which had been there. And observe this: that above, these two Marys "and the mother of the sons of Zebedee", whom we suppose to be Salome herself, "were watching from afar off" the wonders that were happening in the passion of Christ, and his body hanging upon the tree. But here the three did not remain: for the mother of the sons of Zebedee is not written to sit together with Mary Magdalene and with Mary the mother of James and Joseph opposite the tomb. For perhaps the mother of the sons of Zebedee was able to come as far as this; but these women, being as it were greater in love, were not absent even from the things that were done afterward.
[§145] But on the next day, which is after the day of preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees came together to Pilate, saying: Lord, we have recalled that that deceiver said while he was still alive: after the third day I will rise again. Command therefore that the tomb be guarded until the third day, lest perhaps his disciples come and steal him away and say to the people: he has risen from the dead; and the last error will be worse than the first. But Pilate said to them: you have guards; go, guard it as you know how. And they, going, secured the tomb, sealing the stone, together with the guards (27, 62—66).
It is reasonable to question the chief priests, who came to Pilate to say the things they said: tell me, priests, when Jesus had said, "destroy this temple, and I will raise it up in three days," with what intent do you suppose he said this? Concerning the dissolution and resurrection "of his own body," or concerning the destruction and restoration of the temple itself? For if you understood it thus, that he was saying these things about his own resurrection, how is it that, giving testimony against him, you said that "this man said: I can destroy this temple and rebuild it in three days"? But if you truly understood it about that temple, according to which you also gave your testimony, how then do you now know that he said he would rise "after three days" from the dead? See therefore how impiety wars against itself by its own words. For through these words they themselves condemn that testimony of theirs, since, truly understanding him to be saying those things about the resurrection "of his own body" and knowing it, they turned his words toward the destruction and restoration of that insensible temple.
But further I ask: what are you saying, priests? Surely that he was telling men, "after three days I will rise again," and secretly he was charging his disciples to steal him away by night and say after three days that he has risen from the dead? But this very thing is incredible on its own account: that, after so many moral discourses which he taught before all the people, and after such and so great mighty works which he displayed everywhere throughout all Judea, he would deceive his own disciples with words, so that they too would blame the one giving such commands, and therefore would by no means do what he commanded—especially on account of the danger which threatened them from the people, if they should confess that the one who a little before had been crucified was both their teacher and the Christ. But if it is incredible that he said this, see whether it is not consistent that, just as he worked wonders, just as he foretold that his Gospel would be preached "in the whole world," and just as: "you will stand before governors and kings," and just as: "Jerusalem will be destroyed by an army," so also he foretold concerning his own resurrection what he said: "destroy this temple, and I will raise it up in three days." Therefore also to their own prejudice the priests and Pharisees spoke to Pilate, saying that that deceiver said while he was still alive that after three days I will rise again. But further, see that "some of the guards, coming into the city, reported"—not to others, but to those very "chief priests, all the things whatsoever had been done," so that on every side their impiety might be established as inexcusable; but they, most wretched, did not even so acquiesce to such great proofs, so as to accept that Jesus was the Christ, but even after all these things they acted maliciously because of the hardness of their heart. For just as the heart of Pharaoh had been hardened over so many and such great wonders which had been done in Egypt, so also these were hardened, so that, "gathered together with the elders and taking counsel, they gave money" to greedy men so that they should say, "that his disciples, coming by night, stole him away while we were sleeping." And those who read in the law, "you shall not bear false witness," were even inviting others to false witness, paying out much money so that the soldiers indeed should bear false witness (subjecting themselves to dangers on account of greed, if the body of Jesus had been stolen), and that they might much more appease the governor and persuade him (with as much money as the governor could be appeased with, or else also with entreaties), wishing to rescue from danger those who had borne false witness against their own selves, saying, contrary to military discipline, that they had then fallen asleep with so deep a sleep that the disciples had dared to come all together and in numbers (being confident that the soldiers were sleeping quite soundly), and thus had stolen away the body of Jesus.
And all these things were being carried out by the opposing powers at work against the teaching of Christ, reckoning that they could extinguish from the life of men the providence of God and faith concerning the resurrection of the Lord. And just as the excessive hardness of Pharaoh was not softened by the many wonders done through Moses, so, or even more, the hardness of the heart of these men was not only not bent by the signs and wonders done, but they did not even believe the guards reporting, "who came into the city and reported all things whatsoever had been done." And to "Pharaoh" indeed it was said: "for this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show in you my power, and that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth," but as for these, the magnanimity of God "bore with them," "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction," so that there might be "salvation among the Gentiles."